Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00724)

At 04:13 PM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:

>

>
>While you were gone, things on theos-l got better, then got worse, then got
>much worse, then got great for a second, then got far worse than they have
>ever been, then there was a group orgasm, then we realized everyone was
>faking it, then things got worse again. . . .

Richard: Would you please "flesh out that scenario for me? I must have
missed something, to me it seemed that everything was going along fairly
smoothly and people were having reasonable discussions even when they disagreed.
>
>I think I am in agreement with "theosophy as a process."  More simply,
>however, I am convinced that we have to hold fast to the idea that the
>Society includes both "dictionary definitions" (both small and capital T).
> Right now it is my perception that John Algeo and others, by seemingly
>pushing for the idea that the ~Theosopical~ in ~The Theosophical Society~
>stands for capital-T = HPB's doctrines, are trying to squeeze the general
>Truth seekers out of the Society completely.

Richard: That is, in my view, the only rational explanation of their
actions. I do think you have to include Radha Burnier in the equation too. I
don't find it too difficult to hypothesize WHAT they're dong it's WHY they
are doing it that I have trouble with.
>
>By organizing the Society around THE THREE OBJECTS, it seems clear to me that
>the Founders had the broad epistemological definition (small ~t~) in mind for
>the general membership.  (~theosophy~:  "knowledge derived, at least
>originally, on transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher
>perception.")  By "weeding" the Society of members who do not necessarily
>believe all the "core doctrines" but who are nonetheless willing to consider
>knowledge which comes via theosophical epistemology, John and others (if this
>is indeed their purpose) may be pulling up much of HPB's most worthwhile
>future crop.
>
>Jack Hatfield's letter to the editor (resigning membership) in the latest AT
>may be a harbinger in this regard.  John's answer probably did not give him
>much satisfaction; it certainly did not beg him to stay or anything.  Bill
>Delahunt's article just preceding perhaps sums up the reality better than
>John did:  "If you are not open to the study or consideration of Theosophical
>teachings, then why do you want to be part of the Society whose mission it is
>to teach and promote those ideas?"

Well, I am glad to see I wasn't the only person disturbed by John Algeo's
response to Jack Hatfield's letter. I think John's letter was disingenuous,
dissembling, saccharine, and terribly hypocritical. With every issue of The
Messenger and with every public "official" act and publication, they are
making it more and more clear that if a person doesn't accept their "Core
Doctrine" as "Dogma" them that person had best find somewhere else to work
at their trans formative quest. It is my considered opinion that what is now
passed off as "Theosophical Teachings" is 94.5% CWL, .5% A.B. and
unfortunately, merely 5% H.P.B. I don't know if that proportion is what the
original founders had in mind, in fact I doubt very strongly that they'd
approve of it at all.
>
>Did you catch the subtle machination in the second part of the sentence?
> While we are undoubtedly all open to study etc., where in THE THREE OBJECTS
>does it say anything about a "official mission" to teach and promote HPB's
>ideas?  I can perhaps live with this as the sort of  "quiet understanding" it
>has been for over a hundred years; however, the new fatuous and/or mendacious
>overtness regarding this subject is pretty amazing and depressing.

Indeed it is! I don't know about you but it makes me angry! Of course with
my present reputation, "everything"makes me angry, but to those who really
know me, that is anything but true.
>
>Anyway, glad you are back.
>
>Godspeed,
>
>
>Richard Ihle
>
>
I'm glad he's back too!

alexis dolgorukii
>
>